Rolling Stones-Brown Sugar (3 Viewers)

[squistion]

Not surprisingly Piers Morgan defends the song and thinks the Stones should not have removed it from their tour set list. 

Piers Morgan @piersmorgan Oct 13

I’m getting no satisfaction from seeing the Rolling Stones surrender to the woke brigade – when the charts are full of rappers glorifying violent sex, misogyny and guns why is Brown Sugar the song that’s deemed offensive?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088127/PIERS-MORGAN-Im-getting-no-satisfaction-seeing-Stones-surrender-woke-brigade.html

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not surprisingly Piers Morgan defends the song and thinks the Stones should not have removed it from their tour set list. 

Piers Morgan @piersmorgan Oct 13

I’m getting no satisfaction from seeing the Rolling Stones surrender to the woke brigade – when the charts are full of rappers glorifying violent sex, misogyny and guns why is Brown Sugar the song that’s deemed offensive?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088127/PIERS-MORGAN-Im-getting-no-satisfaction-seeing-Stones-surrender-woke-brigade.html

Do you have a problem with the song?  If not, why are you laughing at Piers Morgan?  If so, why not say what the problem is?

 

[squistion]

Do you have a problem with the song?  If not, why are you laughing at Piers Morgan?  If so, why not say what the problem is?

I am laughing at Piers Morgan's clueless defense of the song. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am laughing at Piers Morgan's clueless defense of the song. 

Do you have a problem with the song?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I mean, if you have an issue with Brown Sugar or Under My Thumb, you should just say so and explain why.  I get why people don't want to do that -- they'll come off looking like clueless nimrods because no normal person has any real issue with either song.  But hey at least you'd get points for honesty.

Instead, we get these stupid deflection posts along the lines of "I know this is stupid, but I support it because [racism]" or "Look at this idiot who thinks Brown Sugar is okay!"  But copying and pasting from Twitter is a lot easier than coming up with our ideas I guess. 

 

[Joe Schmo]

Honestly I think it's defensible to laugh at both the nimrods who have an issue with the song And Piers Morgan cuz he such a brit twit. No need to choose one over the other, imo.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Do you have a problem with the song?

@squistion 

 

[squistion]

@squistion 

You can't insult me by inferring that I am a clueless nimrod and do stupid deflection posts and then expect me to answer your questions - sorry it doesn't work that way. Get someone else to play those games with you, because I won't. 

 

[Shutout]

I am laughing at Piers Morgan's clueless defense of the song. 

Maybe @IvanKaramazov is laughing at someone's clueless OFFENSE of the song.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This thread reminds me of an unrelated episode from like 15 years ago.  This was during the great atheism debate of the early 2000s, when we spent a massive amount of time arguing about religion.  I was and still am on Team Theism.  But I have to admit that I wasn't always happy with some of the "help" that people on "my side" provided.

Specifically, I remember some evangelical group in Kentucky or Tennessee opening a creation museum that featured exhibits with human beings riding dinosaurs.  Obviously that was both dumb and incredibly cringey, and everybody on Team Atheism took great pleasure in dunking on these people.  And who could blame them?  If you can't laugh at the other team scoring a hilarious own-goal, what's even the point of all of this?  But there's something tribal about watching your intellectual opponents beat up on a bunch of weak sisters who are coded as being on "your side" of a big issue.  It's extremely tempting to parachute into threads like that and deflect, kick up dust, and generally try to change the subject from this one particular instance of somebody on your side doing something stupid.  

That's when it's a good idea to just stop and ask yourself whether you really want to defend the lamest arguments put forth by the least-capable members of your tribe, or whether you even want to do the tribal thing at all.  Once you gain the ability to say "Haha, yes that's really dumb -- I agree with you guys that this is taking things way too far" you stop falling victim to this dynamic.  

In this case, almost nobody -- really just one PR guy who apparently lost the ability to perceive irony -- thinks that Brown Sugar is anything other than a scathing critique of slave-owners. @timschochet knows it.  I'm not so sure about @squistion but I'd put it at like 80% that even he knows it.  But those guys just can't resist mounting a half-hearted defense of one of the dumber recent invocations of woke logic.  

If something is indefensible, just let it go.  Everybody sees the deflection attempt for what they are.  

 

[djmich]

This thread reminds me of an unrelated episode from like 15 years ago.  This was during the great atheism debate of the early 2000s, when we spent a massive amount of time arguing about religion.  I was and still am on Team Theism.  But I have to admit that I wasn't always happy with some of the "help" that people on "my side" provided.

Specifically, I remember some evangelical group in Kentucky or Tennessee opening a creation museum that featured exhibits with human beings riding dinosaurs.  Obviously that was both dumb and incredibly cringey, and everybody on Team Atheism took great pleasure in dunking on these people.  And who could blame them?  If you can't laugh at the other team scoring a hilarious own-goal, what's even the point of all of this?  But there's something tribal about watching your intellectual opponents beat up on a bunch of weak sisters who are coded as being on "your side" of a big issue.  It's extremely tempting to parachute into threads like that and deflect, kick up dust, and generally try to change the subject from this one particular instance of somebody on your side doing something stupid.  

That's when it's a good idea to just stop and ask yourself whether you really want to defend the lamest arguments put forth by the least-capable members of your tribe, or whether you even want to do the tribal thing at all.  Once you gain the ability to say "Haha, yes that's really dumb -- I agree with you guys that this is taking things way too far" you stop falling victim to this dynamic.  

In this case, almost nobody -- really just one PR guy who apparently lost the ability to perceive irony -- thinks that Brown Sugar is anything other than a scathing critique of slave-owners. @timschochet knows it.  I'm not so sure about @squistion but I'd put it at like 80% that even he knows it.  But those guys just can't resist mounting a half-hearted defense of one of the dumber recent invocations of woke logic.  

If something is indefensible, just let it go.  Everybody sees the deflection attempt for what they are.  

Great post, particularly the bolded.

 

[Sparky Big Time]

Who cares what songs they play or do not play, why give them an ounce of attention; since that is what this is all about.

You want to hear the song there are plenty ways to hear it.  Why waste time worrying over the posturing of the wealthy as they try to out-virtue signal each other.

 

[bigbottom]

I saw a list recently of movies that would never be made today because they are racially insensitive, homophobic, insensitive to women, etc. Some of these movies are all time classics and some of them I’ve always loved (for instance Pretty in Pink- racially insensitive to Asians and objectifies women and worse.)

And yet, if not making these movies is the trade-off for a more civil society in which we respect each other more, then I will take it. 

“Let’s stop making art that offends in the name of civility” is not a philosophy I can get behind. 

 

[Sparky Big Time]

“Let’s stop making art that offends in the name of civility” is not a philosophy I can get behind. 

A fair statement, I mean, we could eliminate a significant volume of music under this kind of pretense. I find that the "woke" nonsense is rather adolescent in how people use it.  There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom, and social media is giving a voice to a swath of people not yet ready to have a voice. The outcome is just silly actions and one-upmanship under the guise of enlightenment.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I mean, if you have an issue with Brown Sugar or Under My Thumb, you should just say so and explain why.  I get why people don't want to do that -- they'll come off looking like clueless nimrods because no normal person has any real issue with either song.  But hey at least you'd get points for honesty.

Instead, we get these stupid deflection posts along the lines of "I know this is stupid, but I support it because [racism]" or "Look at this idiot who thinks Brown Sugar is okay!"  But copying and pasting from Twitter is a lot easier than coming up with our ideas I guess. 

I don't think the song should be banned or censored.

But I can totally understand why Mick Jagger doesn't want to sing it in concert.  Yes, the protagonist narrator of the song is undoubtedly intended to be evil.  But the actual words of the song are sung by Mick Jagger.  He has to embody this evil slaveowner on stage.  And even though he's portraying a villain, he's doing it to an audience that's happy and cheering and singing along with him.  And this isn't just some supernatural fun villain like "Sympathy for the Devil."  He's singing from the perspective of a normal human being that could have existed not that long ago and who, along with people like him, inflicted violence and pain on the ancestors of millions of Americans.  And when thousands of people in the crowd are singing the lyrics at the top of their lungs, it isn't necessarily clear who is "in" on the genuine meaning of the song and who might just be into singing about abusing and raping a slave.

It's not like the Rolling Stones are a one-hit wonder.  They can sell out stadiums whenever they want even without playing this song.  They don't need to play the song if they don't want to.  And if I were in their position I wouldn't want to either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think the song should be banned or censored.

But I can totally understand why Mick Jagger doesn't want to sing it in concert.  Yes, the protagonist narrator of the song is undoubtedly intended to be evil.  But the actual words of the song are sung by Mick Jagger.  He has to embody this evil slaveowner on stage.  And even though he's portraying a villain, he's doing it to an audience that's happy and cheering and singing along with him.  And this isn't just some supernatural fun villain like "Sympathy for the Devil."  He's singing from the perspective of a normal human being that could have existed not that long ago and who, along with people like him, inflicted violence and pain on the ancestors of millions of Americans.  And when thousands of people in the crowd are singing the lyrics at the top of their lungs, it isn't necessarily clear who is "in" on the genuine meaning of the song and who might just be into singing about abusing and raping a slave.

It's not like the Rolling Stones are a one-hit wonder.  They can sell out stadiums whenever they want even without playing this song.  They don't need to play the song if they don't want to.  And if I were in their position I wouldn't want to either.

If that's what's going on, fair enough.  The fact that I'm legitimately unsure about whether people like @squistion understand this song is probably a data point in your favor.

 

[timschochet]

“Let’s stop making art that offends in the name of civility” is not a philosophy I can get behind. 

That’s not my position. But perhaps I stated it badly, because it’s pretty clear that @IvanKaramazovmisunderstands me as well. 
 

What’s happening to “Brown Sugar” is stupid. It’s excessive. And there have been and are going to be many other examples of stupidity and worse than stupidity because of political correctness and “cancel culture”. And whenever such an example occurs, we need to condemn it, laugh at it, or even try to change it if somebody is actually harmed. 
But there are those who want to use these incidents to decry not just them but the whole environment of political correctness that made them happen. They want to do away with political correctness and return us to a previous era where insults against minorities, women, gays, etc., was more acceptable. And I don’t agree with this. I believe that, despite the excesses, despite the occasional stupidity, political correctness has been a good thing for our society in general. Obviously not in this instance, but don’t use this instance to condemn it as a whole. 
Hope that makes more sense. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That’s not my position. But perhaps I stated it badly, because it’s pretty clear that @IvanKaramazovmisunderstands me as well. 
 

What’s happening to “Brown Sugar” is stupid. It’s excessive. And there have been and are going to be many other examples of stupidity and worse than stupidity because of political correctness and “cancel culture”. And whenever such an example occurs, we need to condemn it, laugh at it, or even try to change it if somebody is actually harmed. 
But there are those who want to use these incidents to decry not just them but the whole environment of political correctness that made them happen. They want to do away with political correctness and return us to a previous era where insults against minorities, women, gays, etc., was more acceptable. And I don’t agree with this. I believe that, despite the excesses, despite the occasional stupidity, political correctness has been a good thing for our society in general. Obviously not in this instance, but don’t use this instance to condemn it as a whole. 
Hope that makes more sense. 

If I sit here idly while people make fun of the creationism museum, the next thing you know the Moors will be leveling our churches.

 

[timschochet]

If I sit here idly while people make fun of the creationism museum, the next thing you know the Moors will be leveling our churches.

I appreciate the Martin Niemoller reference, but I don’t see it’s application here. 
And I’ve made fun of the creation museum. 

 

[djmich]

I need to stop liking Ivan's posts, people going to think I'm an alias

 

[bigbottom]

That’s not my position. But perhaps I stated it badly, because it’s pretty clear that @IvanKaramazovmisunderstands me as well. 
 

What’s happening to “Brown Sugar” is stupid. It’s excessive. And there have been and are going to be many other examples of stupidity and worse than stupidity because of political correctness and “cancel culture”. And whenever such an example occurs, we need to condemn it, laugh at it, or even try to change it if somebody is actually harmed. 
But there are those who want to use these incidents to decry not just them but the whole environment of political correctness that made them happen. They want to do away with political correctness and return us to a previous era where insults against minorities, women, gays, etc., was more acceptable. And I don’t agree with this. I believe that, despite the excesses, despite the occasional stupidity, political correctness has been a good thing for our society in general. Obviously not in this instance, but don’t use this instance to condemn it as a whole. 
Hope that makes more sense. 

It does. What I opposed was your suggestion that all time classic movies and movies you love shouldn’t be made as a trade off for a more civil society. 

 

[timschochet]

It does. What I opposed was your suggestion that all time classic movies and movies you love shouldn’t be made as a trade off for a more civil society. 

I do think those movies should be made (most  of them.) Perhaps some should be made with some slight changes. 
But even if they’re not made (highly regrettable) I consider the trade off worth it. That’s the point I was trying to make (badly it appears.) 

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

If I sit here idly while people make fun of the creationism museum, the next thing you know the Moors will be leveling our churches.

I thought it was the Moops!?

 

[DocHolliday]

I don't think the song should be banned or censored.

But I can totally understand why Mick Jagger doesn't want to sing it in concert.  Yes, the protagonist narrator of the song is undoubtedly intended to be evil.  But the actual words of the song are sung by Mick Jagger.  He has to embody this evil slaveowner on stage.  And even though he's portraying a villain, he's doing it to an audience that's happy and cheering and singing along with him.  And this isn't just some supernatural fun villain like "Sympathy for the Devil."  He's singing from the perspective of a normal human being that could have existed not that long ago and who, along with people like him, inflicted violence and pain on the ancestors of millions of Americans.  And when thousands of people in the crowd are singing the lyrics at the top of their lungs, it isn't necessarily clear who is "in" on the genuine meaning of the song and who might just be into singing about abusing and raping a slave.

It's not like the Rolling Stones are a one-hit wonder.  They can sell out stadiums whenever they want even without playing this song.  They don't need to play the song if they don't want to.  And if I were in their position I wouldn't want to either.

I like this take.  If the Stones don’t want to create controversy, they simply quit playing it live and play other songs.  Banning music that was made decades ago is just stupid.  

 

[tonydead]

I don't think the song should be banned or censored.

But I can totally understand why Mick Jagger doesn't want to sing it in concert.  Yes, the protagonist narrator of the song is undoubtedly intended to be evil.  But the actual words of the song are sung by Mick Jagger.  He has to embody this evil slaveowner on stage.  And even though he's portraying a villain, he's doing it to an audience that's happy and cheering and singing along with him.  And this isn't just some supernatural fun villain like "Sympathy for the Devil."  He's singing from the perspective of a normal human being that could have existed not that long ago and who, along with people like him, inflicted violence and pain on the ancestors of millions of Americans.  And when thousands of people in the crowd are singing the lyrics at the top of their lungs, it isn't necessarily clear who is "in" on the genuine meaning of the song and who might just be into singing about abusing and raping a slave.

It's not like the Rolling Stones are a one-hit wonder.  They can sell out stadiums whenever they want even without playing this song.  They don't need to play the song if they don't want to.  And if I were in their position I wouldn't want to either.

That's not what is happening here.  Boy does your woke defense mechanism have an overactive imagination.  

The Stones have said they don't want the hassle.  Translation:  They are being hassled about playing the song.

The Stones have said they hope they can play it in the future.  Translation:  They want to play the song.

 

[tonydead]

This thread reminds me of an unrelated episode from like 15 years ago.  This was during the great atheism debate of the early 2000s, when we spent a massive amount of time arguing about religion.  I was and still am on Team Theism.  But I have to admit that I wasn't always happy with some of the "help" that people on "my side" provided.

Specifically, I remember some evangelical group in Kentucky or Tennessee opening a creation museum that featured exhibits with human beings riding dinosaurs.  Obviously that was both dumb and incredibly cringey, and everybody on Team Atheism took great pleasure in dunking on these people.  And who could blame them?  If you can't laugh at the other team scoring a hilarious own-goal, what's even the point of all of this?  But there's something tribal about watching your intellectual opponents beat up on a bunch of weak sisters who are coded as being on "your side" of a big issue.  It's extremely tempting to parachute into threads like that and deflect, kick up dust, and generally try to change the subject from this one particular instance of somebody on your side doing something stupid.  

That's when it's a good idea to just stop and ask yourself whether you really want to defend the lamest arguments put forth by the least-capable members of your tribe, or whether you even want to do the tribal thing at all.  Once you gain the ability to say "Haha, yes that's really dumb -- I agree with you guys that this is taking things way too far" you stop falling victim to this dynamic.  

In this case, almost nobody -- really just one PR guy who apparently lost the ability to perceive irony -- thinks that Brown Sugar is anything other than a scathing critique of slave-owners. @timschochet knows it.  I'm not so sure about @squistion but I'd put it at like 80% that even he knows it.  But those guys just can't resist mounting a half-hearted defense of one of the dumber recent invocations of woke logic.  

If something is indefensible, just let it go.  Everybody sees the deflection attempt for what they are.  

Thanks for calling out the elephants in the forum.

Bad news it there are a lot more clueless nimrods in the real world than you think, just check the social media hysteria.  In the real world the Stones have stopped playing this song because of the clueless nimrods.  

 

[tonydead]

If I were the Stones I wouldn't play it the next 7 concerts.  Save it until the final night at the Hard Rock in Florida as the first song of the encore.  A big tour finale with a big middle finger to cancel culture.  

 

[timschochet]

That's not what is happening here.  Boy does your woke defense mechanism have an overactive imagination.  

The Stones have said they don't want the hassle.  Translation:  They are being hassled about playing the song.

The Stones have said they hope they can play it in the future.  Translation:  They want to play the song.

Actually the Stones are far more bothered about Trump continuing to use their music than they are about this issue. And they don’t need any translation to express their disgust with Trump. 

 

[tonydead]

Actually the Stones are far more bothered about Trump continuing to use their music than they are about this issue. And they don’t need any translation to express their disgust with Trump. 

But Trump!

JFC 

 

[E Street Brat]

Brown Sugar is the first song I learned to play in open G tuning, 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I like this take.  If the Stones don’t want to create controversy, they simply quit playing it live and play other songs.  Banning music that was made decades ago is just stupid.  

It's not banned. Go to the record store and buy it or go stream it on Spotify - it's still there. The band is just choosing not to play it live - and no one would have noticed if it wasn't asked about by a reporter. They have a lot of hit songs afterall.

 

[rockaction]

If that's what's going on, fair enough.  The fact that I'm legitimately unsure about whether people like @squistion understand this song is probably a data point in your favor.

My own personal irony meter is off then, because I always thought the Stones were evil enough to sing both songs with a foot firmly in the gutter and a mere wink at the stars.

If you literally read the lyrics, that's fine to come away with an appreciation of the irony of both of them, but Mick Jagger positively revels in them. It doesn't help that "Under My Thumb" is also accompanied by "Stupid Girl" and other songs like that off of the album Aftermath. Any listen to "Stray Cat Blues" positively blurs the lines between irony and enjoyment. The licks by the guitar player are too good, the embellishment too fully formed by the singer.

Doc Oc is a lot better than I with the Stones, but I always personally thought -- and this is just me -- that these songs were Mick winking at everything, hoping you're in on the anti-social joke, just as a matter of shock. Like the Ramones playing indefensibly in front of ironic swastikas that were shocking in the seventies. The avant-garde was in on the joke -- but oh! -- how it looks differently now.

I get the complaint with these songs. My own take is that they're art, and that civility should take a backseat because art can be truth as much as the most logical and uptight disquisition of things. That said, I can see where Mick won't sing them. Feeling guilty, perhaps? Don't tempt the devil. You'll meet your maker soon enough.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Any one objecting to brown sugar have issues with the super bowl halftime show?  All of those artists careers were built and prospered on misogyny.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Was just reading this article about why Dave Chappelle ended his Comedy Central show and it seems pretty analogous to this situation.  He was doing a skit that poked fun of racial stereotypes but was getting big laughs from some white guy who seemed to be laughing for the wrong reasons. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Was just reading this article about why Dave Chappelle ended his Comedy Central show and it seems pretty analogous to this situation.  He was doing a skit that poked fun of racial stereotypes but was getting big laughs from some white guy who seemed to be laughing for the wrong reasons. 

I'm not sure how he divines that from some guy laughing.  This goes to his problem with him having a problem with white people in general - which he even admits to in his latest special, The Closer.   I always thought his reasoning was BS.

Now If some white guy were to go up on stage and say the same thing about black people as Chapelle says about whites the left would lose their bacon.  Just to be clear, Chapelle said this:

"Anyone who knows me knows my issue is with white people""

Now let's say a white guy says:

"Anyone who knows me knows my issue is with black people".

What do you think the response would be?

And further on his reasoning for ending The Chapelle Show, Dave had ZERO issues portraying White or Asian people the way he did.  But it was this ONE white guy in the audience laughing particularly loud about black people stereotypes that bothered him?  Please.  No one is buying it.  Seems awfully convenient to claim he was bothered by that when he was not bothered by the ridiculous White or Asian stereotypes he displayed on that show.

Even with all that being said, I like Chapelle and think he's currently one of the best comedians on the planet.  I remember laughing so hard watching his show I nearly pissed my pants numerous times.  Still one of the best shows ever.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Gotta ask after reading that article, was the focus on the guy being white Chapelle's or the author of the article?     I understand that Chapelle has joked that his problem is with white people, but my take reading that is he wasn't comfortable with what he took as laughing at the wrong beats and wondering if his show was just adding to the problem.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I'm not sure how he divines that from some guy laughing.  This goes to his problem with him having a problem with white people in general - which he even admits to in his latest special, The Closer.   I always thought his reasoning was BS.

Now If some white guy were to go up on stage and say the same thing about black people as Chapelle says about whites the left would lose their bacon.  Just to be clear, Chapelle said this:

"Anyone who knows me knows my issue is with white people""

Now let's say a white guy says:

"Anyone who knows me knows my issue is with black people".

What do you think the response would be?

Big part of the problem with dialogue in general - just assuming you know how a big group of people would react to something instead of actually interacting with them.  

Anyway, as for my answer I would first ask a question - is that white guy also a comedian? 

 

[Summer Wheat]

I'm not sure how he divines that from some guy laughing.  This goes to his problem with him having a problem with white people in general - which he even admits to in his latest special, The Closer.   I always thought his reasoning was BS.

Now If some white guy were to go up on stage and say the same thing about black people as Chapelle says about whites the left would lose their bacon.  Just to be clear, Chapelle said this:

"Anyone who knows me knows my issue is with white people""

Now let's say a white guy says:

"Anyone who knows me knows my issue is with black people".

What do you think the response would be?

And further on his reasoning for ending The Chapelle Show, Dave had ZERO issues portraying White or Asian people the way he did.  But it was this ONE white guy in the audience laughing particularly loud about black people stereotypes that bothered him?  Please.  No one is buying it.  Seems awfully convenient to claim he was bothered by that when he was not bothered by the ridiculous White or Asian stereotypes he displayed on that show.

Even with all that being said, I like Chapelle and think he's currently one of the best comedians on the planet.  I remember laughing so hard watching his show I nearly pissed my pants numerous times.  Still one of the best shows ever.

I hate when people use the "broad brush" angle.    "White people" "black people" "Asian people" "hispanic people"  As if all in any group act the same all the time.  Remember when Chappelle used to mock Asians saying they did not know how to drive and use an Asian voice with his hands on a fake wheel.  Would that fly now?  I doubt it.  Should it if he considers it the art of comedy?

 

[KarmaPolice]

I hate when people use the "broad brush" angle.    "White people" "black people" "Asian people" "hispanic people"  As if all in any group act the same all the time.  Remember when Chappelle used to mock Asians saying they did not know how to drive and use an Asian voice with his hands on a fake wheel.  Would that fly now?  I doubt it.  Should it if he considers it the art of comedy?

Does that also include liberals, conservatives, "the left", etc.. ?    That seems to happen about every 5th post on these boards.   

I am guessing there are a few things that he used to do that he wouldn't anymore.   He comes off as a pretty self-reflecting dude, and I think from what he's said and the article that was posted, that he realized it's a hard line to toe between jokes and adding to the problem.  

 

[BladeRunner]

I hate when people use the "broad brush" angle.    "White people" "black people" "Asian people" "hispanic people"  As if all in any group act the same all the time.  Remember when Chappelle used to mock Asians saying they did not know how to drive and use an Asian voice with his hands on a fake wheel.  Would that fly now?  I doubt it.  Should it if he considers it the art of comedy?

Here is my position:  If a comedian is making fun of you as a group of people, you and "your people" have made it.  You're now just like everyone else.  Sit back and enjoy the laughs!  Nothing should be off limits, as far as I'm concerned.  And that's not just for comedians - it goes for all of us.  Comedians are not nor should they be a special protected FREE SPEECH class.

We have too many people that are okay with laughing at OTHER groups of people other than there own.  For example, everyone is fine with laughing at white people in general and white men in particular.  Us white guys are supposed to sit back and take it and you know what? We do.  We all laugh along.

But Chapelle, as an example, presumed some white guy was laughing at black stereotypes a bit too hard and THAT was problematic.  But the white and asian stereotypes?  No big deal here.  I'm a comedian!

Another group guilty of this is exactly what Dave is saying in his specials:  The Trans people are severely thin-skinned and are on a warpath to cancel anyone who makes jokes about them.  I agree with Dave on going after them to point out their hypocrisy but I can also see his hypocrisy as well.

Again - if your being made fun of by comedians then you've reached the promised land, IMO.  Congrats - you're fight for equality is over (at least from a comedy perspective).

 

[Summer Wheat]

Does that also include liberals, conservatives, "the left", etc.. ?    That seems to happen about every 5th post on these boards.   

I am guessing there are a few things that he used to do that he wouldn't anymore.   He comes off as a pretty self-reflecting dude, and I think from what he's said and the article that was posted, that he realized it's a hard line to toe between jokes and adding to the problem.  

I don`t know?  Does it? 

It is a hard line and to the point in this country where it is difficult to define comedy from offense.  Chappelle is trying to make people laugh.  So how does he define what people should laugh at during his routine?  The guy laughing thought that was his intent.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don`t know?  Does it? 

It is a hard line and to the point in this country where it is difficult to define comedy from offense.  Chappelle is trying to make people laugh.  So how does he define what people should laugh at during his routine?  The guy laughing thought that was his intent.  

That's why I am asking you.   I see that so much on these boards, but not many call it out, that's all.  

I don't know - I guess somebody who does it for a living would have a decent grasp on where he would guess the laughs would come in his routine.   I would also guess they would be in tune to the "tone" of the crowd, etc.  

 

[Summer Wheat]

That's why I am asking you.   I see that so much on these boards, but not many call it out, that's all.  

I don't know - I guess somebody who does it for a living would have a decent grasp on where he would guess the laughs would come in his routine.   I would also guess they would be in tune to the "tone" of the crowd, etc.  

That is what is so difficult nowadays.   Chappelle makes a joke about black people but gets upset because white people are laughing too hard.  To most comics any laugh is a good laugh as it is a tough job.

Would Chris Rock do some of the routines he used to?  I doubt it because they were very disparaging to black people but got laughs from all.

 

[KarmaPolice]

That is what is so difficult nowadays.   Chappelle makes a joke about black people but gets upset because white people are laughing too hard.  To most comics any laugh is a good laugh as it is a tough job.

Would Chris Rock do some of the routines he used to?  I doubt it because they were very disparaging to black people but got laughs from all.

My question above stands.  Was Chapelle focused on the white part, did the author of the purposely add that, or both? 

Also, it seems the focus is a bit too much on the white guy part, not as much that he decided to stop because he thought he was maybe doing harm in the race arena.  

 

[BladeRunner]

My question above stands.  Was Chapelle focused on the white part, did the author of the purposely add that, or both? 

Also, it seems the focus is a bit too much on the white guy part, not as much that he decided to stop because he thought he was maybe doing harm in the race arena.  

The mere fact that he even brought it up shows you that he was focused on it. Because I can guarantee you there was probably black people laughing extremely hard at the white people and Asians in his skits. But that wasn't the problem. It was the one white guy.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The mere fact that he even brought it up shows you that he was focused on it. Because I can guarantee you there was probably black people laughing extremely hard at the white people and Asians in his skits. But that wasn't the problem. It was the one white guy.

Yet again, in the article linked - the part about the guy being white was not in any of the quotes from Dave that I saw, hence my question.    I think there is a slight distinction, but not all that much, b/c at the end of the day I think from picking up other stuff he's said it was about somebody laughing at what he thought was the wrong stuff that got his wheels turning about his message.    Seems to be somebody that takes what he says on stage and it's impact fairly seriously, or he wouldn't have done what he did. 

 

[Workhorse]

I just saw Living Colour at a music festival in Atlanta. They covered Brown Sugar. Pretty punk rock to “reclaim” the song like that. Bravo.